S.Gopinathan v. R. Panneerselvam
Case brief
What is this about?
Madras High Court, C.R.P.No.726 of 2026 (S. Sounthar, J., 16.02.2026): Advocate Commissioner appointment refused in suit for recovery of possession; defendant alleged plaintiff altering physical features by removing superstructure and trees; held Commissioner's appointment unnecessary where plaint properly describes property and no injunction sought against alteration; order of Additional Subordinate Judge, Namakkal in I.A.No.5 of 2023 in O.S.No.462 of 2022 upheld; revision dismissed under Article 227; no costs; connected CMP.No.3792 of 2026 closed.
What did the court decide?
In a suit for recovery of possession, the respondent-plaintiff has to establish his right over the property and his entitlement to recovery of possession; the suit property has been properly described in the plaint, and the petitioner-defendant has not filed a suit or application seeking injunction restraining the respondent from altering the physical features of the suit property.